Vito wrote:

Let's be "Real" here. A 17 year old is NOT a child. Some places, they already have two kids of their own by 17. They are just as developed (mentally & physically) as an 18 or 19 year old.

What do you think is being shot for major magazines and lingerie catalogs? 30 year olds? Nope, 15-22 year olds.

You are almost correct on being developed both mentally and physically. I was 17 years old when I joined the military, of course you need permission from your parents and you are not allowed in combat until you are 18 years old.

From the time I was 17 years old to the time I was 19 years old and came back to the States, it was unbelievable how childish students at college were. I could not relate to their lack of respect towards the instructor, or how they found simple amuzement in throwing wadded up pieces of paper at each other.

People develop differently but the age has been averaged out at 18 years old, but the maturity level is at 21 years old for drinking which doesn't mean everyone is going to make the right decision on how much to drink.

I have given this more thought and I realized that I responded to quickly to it, but my reason was when I read lingerie, I jumped to the assumption that it would be lingerie that adults, (18 years and older) would wear, and not some simple cotton underwear and a bra that would be in any ad for stores.

My assumption was wrong and I'm sure this girl just wants a picture of herself wearing a pair of simple cotton full coverage underwear and a bra shot for her comp card and that is why her parents are willing to sign permission for it.

The pose is most likely going to be a cute one with her maybe looking off to the side with a big smile. No make up or high heels. Maybe some cotton socks.

So I am offering this apology to everyone on my narrow minded thinking that lingerie did not include simple cotton underwear and bra.

Good luck with the shoot.

martinimages wrote:
Last time I did a major casting with the big agencies in L.A....more than 30% the models at the audition (from MANY agencies including Ford, Wilhemina, etc.) were under 18...some as young as 15.   

Have you ever been to a fashion shoot?  Pretty uncovered, often.  And sexy.

There are child labor laws and indecency laws that vary state by state...but it's mostly about parental permission and intent and hours in the day.

For film (motion picture/commercials)...it limits the hours, and on schooldays often you need a teacher present.  Or a trained 'child welfare' employee.    Photo shoots are a little vaguer on the regs, but not much.  You should know these laws, if you're doing a shoot with minors.

As for lingerie or nudity, it's so subject to the interpretation of the courts whether it's pornographic...so wise to err on the side of caution.  But nothing illegal about it, WITH parental consent and adherance to the labor laws.   And if you run a pro shoot, you should never even have to get that far.  And if you have parents present...just have them ok the outfits, setting, poses etc.  Getting it out in the open makes it easy.   (Is this outfit ok without a bra?  What do you think?)  And it makes it so much less likely to have a problem at all.

And make sure everyone's on the same page about the photo usage, or potential usage.  Including parents.  In writing.

The reason these threads get so messy, is that the law gets mixed up with anger/personal morality about this very touchy subject.  And kids/teens do get exploited, duh.   But if there's nothing exploitive going on..it's usually just another shoot.

If you're nervous, ask an attorney.  Or call law enforcement in the area.  I'm sure they'd tell you the guidelines.  And if you're legit...no reason not to.  Then your ass is covered.

B

Here now, that'll be enough of that rational thinking!

Ty Simone wrote:

The rock I crawled out from under must be a pretty great place because at least I understand what I am posting about before I post it.

You however, are simply making asinine statements with no basis in fact.
you are trying to preach your moral beliefs to a photographer which goes against EVERYTHING a photographer should stand for.

However, for sake of argument, Let's say that shooting Lingerie is wrong.
Is shooting a minor in a bikini then wrong as well?
Both cover the exact same amount of skin, and usually lingerie covers more.
So, No more bikini shots of minors either.
Oh, while we are at it, all bathing suits shots should be off limits.
Because they show too much skin.
And perhaps shorts as well, and tank tops and t-shirts....

If she is not completely covered do not shoot it!

As for welfare of the child crap, never hold water.
for further reference see "The Blue Lagoon, Pappillion and Lolita"
all three of them had a nude minor in them, all three times some yahoo prosecuter tried to go after someone associated with it (including block busters once) and allt three times they were promptly bounce out of court.

Please show me ONE example of where a nude minor photograph, like Sally Mann's or a Minor in Lingerie photograph has EVER been successfully prosecuted as either Child Porn, or endangering the welfare of a child.
Successfully prosecuted.
Once.
JUST ONCE!

the closest you will come is the suggestive photographs in Ohio of the Father and Daughter 2 years ago, and that was dismissed / settled on appeal.

martinimages wrote:
Last time I did a major casting with the big agencies in L.A....more than 30% the models at the audition (from MANY agencies including Ford, Wilhemina, etc.) were under 18...some as young as 15.   

Have you ever been to a fashion shoot?  Pretty uncovered, often.  And sexy.

There are child labor laws and indecency laws that vary state by state...but it's mostly about parental permission and intent and hours in the day.

For film (motion picture/commercials)...it limits the hours, and on schooldays often you need a teacher present.  Or a trained 'child welfare' employee.    Photo shoots are a little vaguer on the regs, but not much.  You should know these laws, if you're doing a shoot with minors.

As for lingerie or nudity, it's so subject to the interpretation of the courts whether it's pornographic...so wise to err on the side of caution.  But nothing illegal about it, WITH parental consent and adherance to the labor laws.   And if you run a pro shoot, you should never even have to get that far.  And if you have parents present...just have them ok the outfits, setting, poses etc.  Getting it out in the open makes it easy.   (Is this outfit ok without a bra?  What do you think?)  And it makes it so much less likely to have a problem at all.

And make sure everyone's on the same page about the photo usage, or potential usage.  Including parents.  In writing.

The reason these threads get so messy, is that the law gets mixed up with anger/personal morality about this very touchy subject.  And kids/teens do get exploited, duh.   But if there's nothing exploitive going on..it's usually just another shoot.

If you're nervous, ask an attorney.  Or call law enforcement in the area.  I'm sure they'd tell you the guidelines.  And if you're legit...no reason not to.  Then your ass is covered.

B

hallopino wrote:
Just watch your back, and get some paper work signed so later down the road parent and daughter don't come back making claims.

I was going take about seven paragraphs to say the same thing.  All I would add is that you should take a few photographs on set of the model and her mother, with both of them looking relaxed and smiling, just to add to the paperwork.

Fashion photography isn't the same.  Usually, there are lots of people about, and the problem wouldn't arise.  But when it's only your word against hers, then the problems arise.

Edit:-  And the poster above me has put my last paragraph better, too.

bang bang photo wrote:
I think the nuance you are missing Ty, is that for the average photographer, having to deal with a prosecutor at all is a really bad thing, even if you ultimately get the case thrown out, or (shudder) ultimately win on appeal.

The effect of being named as a potential child abuser in this day and age is not a pleasant thing to experience, even if you ultimately prevail.

While it would be nice if we would all be good little warriors and fight the good fight against those who are trying to chill our rights, I think it's wrong to presume that others should do this.

That's why some of us say -- don't buy trouble. If your business is so marginal that the only way you can make money is by shooting 16 y/o's in lingerie for no good reason other than the 16 y/o wants the picture, I would submit that you're taking on a lot of risk for no good reason.

On the other hand, as I've said before, if you are a commercial photographer, doing a commercial job for a reputable client, you're in a much different situation, with different risks and rewards than some guy who say, just got done shooting pictures of an adult woman masturbating for her website, and he now brings a sweet 16 y/o into the same studio to shoot her in lingerie.

Ty, go for it. The chances of anything going wrong when photographing a minor wearing some full covered underwear and a bra both made of cotton material will not subject the images to any thing that would suggest sexuality. And that cute playful smile of looking off camera just like the ones they use for cataloq print always looks appropriate.

What company would you be shooting something like this for?

Trey Bruggeman Photo wrote:
I would like to first note that I have not indicated that I have agreed to do this type of shoot, so please keep this in mind when firing back responses about my morality.  I am just curious about other's professional opinions and experiences with situations like this.

I was approached by a model who is under 18 and wants to do a modest lingerie shoot.  None of the shots will be more revealing than typical swimwear (not see-thru or overly skimpy.)  Her mother has also agreed to sign a model release with her.

I'm interested in hearing how other photogs handle situations like this. 

Thanks

Sounds good to me!  If nothing is showing more than what would show in a bikini, what's the problem?  I do it all the time.  There was a big thing about it here, too, a few months ago.  The cops looked at all my images I had shot, brought my camera back to me, told me all was fine.  BTW, the shooting of the girl was NOT why they had my camera.  The detective told me it was all good, NOT illegal unless it was porn, which is what the law forbids for under 18, NOT bikini or underwear.  The images they looked over were lingerie. 

e-string wrote:
Oh geez. Models who are on their way to making it big are usually underage, and they show plenty of skin. I can think of several off-hand who do lingerie with no problems whatsoever.

Models are not all on their way of making it big, but yes models and actors start at a very young age.

As I have already apologized for my quick reply about shooting a minor in lingerie. I assumed that lingerie was just for adults and that it didn't include the pictures you see in ads of girls and boys wearing cottong underwear and for the girls also a cotton bra.

I just automatically assumed it what the lingerie that is suppose to evoke sexuallity which would be not correct for a minor, so that is where I made my mistake. I'm sure you all know she isn't going to be putting on a sultry look wear a g-string with a half bra made out of lace and standing in high heels with a full make up application.

It is all very innocent and will just be a very nice shoot.

Doug Jantz wrote:

Sounds good to me!  If nothing is showing more than what would show in a bikini, what's the problem?  I do it all the time.  There was a big thing about it here, too, a few months ago.  The cops looked at all my images I had shot, brought my camera back to me, told me all was fine.  BTW, the shooting of the girl was NOT why they had my camera.  The detective told me it was all good, NOT illegal unless it was porn, which is what the law forbids for under 18, NOT bikini or underwear.  The images they looked over were lingerie. 

I'm sure a thong swim suite with a very small triangle swim suit bra with the model putting on a lustful face without not gone over big with the police.

Real people wrote:

You are almost correct on being developed both mentally and physically. I was 17 years old when I joined the military, of course you need permission from your parents and you are not allowed in combat until you are 18 years old.

From the time I was 17 years old to the time I was 19 years old and came back to the States, it was unbelievable how childish students at college were. I could not relate to their lack of respect towards the instructor, or how they found simple amuzement in throwing wadded up pieces of paper at each other.

People develop differently but the age has been averaged out at 18 years old, but the maturity level is at 21 years old for drinking which doesn't mean everyone is going to make the right decision on how much to drink.

I have given this more thought and I realized that I responded to quickly to it, but my reason was when I read lingerie, I jumped to the assumption that it would be lingerie that adults, (18 years and older) would wear, and not some simple cotton underwear and a bra that would be in any ad for stores.

My assumption was wrong and I'm sure this girl just wants a picture of herself wearing a pair of simple cotton full coverage underwear and a bra shot for her comp card and that is why her parents are willing to sign permission for it.

The pose is most likely going to be a cute one with her maybe looking off to the side with a big smile. No make up or high heels. Maybe some cotton socks.

So I am offering this apology to everyone on my narrow minded thinking that lingerie did not include simple cotton underwear and bra.

Good luck with the shoot.

Very cool, someone who actually thinks over things and changes opinions!  Thank you!  Most are just out to defend a position and will do so until death!!  Thanks for your post.

Real people wrote:
Models are not all on their way of making it big, but yes models and actors start at a very young age.

As I have already apologized for my quick reply about shooting a minor in lingerie. I assumed that lingerie was just for adults and that it didn't include the pictures you see in ads of girls and boys wearing cottong underwear and for the girls also a cotton bra.

I just automatically assumed it what the lingerie that is suppose to evoke sexuallity which would be not correct for a minor, so that is where I made my mistake. I'm sure you all know she isn't going to be putting on a sultry look wear a g-string with a half bra made out of lace and standing in high heels with a full make up application.

It is all very innocent and will just be a very nice shoot.

I know that not all models are on their way to making it big... that's kind of obvious. lol. As long as nothing is too skimpy (thong, etc) and isn't shot in a glamour style, I don't see why it should be a problem for anyone.

And I'm not just talking about cotton. I know a girl who got signed by Ford at age 16. She does fashion-y lingerie ads that are lacy, etc. However it is not shot in a highly provocative way, and nothing is sheer. That's just how things go in the industry. It happens all the time.

Trey Bruggeman Photo wrote:
Thanks for all the passionate responses.  I didn't realize this would open up the proverbial "can of worms" that it did.  I was really just curious if this was a common occurence for other photogs and how you handle it.

In case anyone was wondering, I declined this portion of the shoot.  Better to just avoid these potentially dangerous situations.

Ahhh..... So the nay sayers win this round.

Real people wrote:

I'm sure a thong swim suite with a very small triangle swim suit bra with the model putting on a lustful face without not gone over big with the police.

The outfits we were shooting were actually thongs.  It was in a park, too!  A lady about 200 feet from us thought she was nude and called the police.  Found out, too, it wasn't even illegal to shoot it in the park!  The detective told me, and I can almost quote:  "just because someone is offended by something does not make it illegal." 

When the detective brought back my camera he actually complimented me on the pics.  He also interviewed the girl and her mother.  He told me the law does not make topless illegal, either.  He said I could be shooting her topless at 17 and it is NOT considered pornographic.  The shooting and visibility of the genitals area IS.  He laughed and said some of my pics would have been considered porn but she was covered. 

So, I don't worry too much about it now.  I had Park Rangers and the police there and a detective who gave me his cell # in case I got called on again while shooting.  LOL

Doug Jantz wrote:

The outfits we were shooting were actually thongs.  It was in a park, too!  A lady about 200 feet from us thought she was nude and called the police.  Found out, too, it wasn't even illegal to shoot it in the park!  The detective told me, and I can almost quote:  "just because someone is offended by something does not make it illegal." 

When the detective brought back my camera he actually complimented me on the pics.  He also interviewed the girl and her mother.  He told me the law does not make topless illegal, either.  He said I could be shooting her topless at 17 and it is NOT considered pornographic.  The shooting and visibility of the genitals area IS.  He laughed and said some of my pics would have been considered porn but she was covered. 

So, I don't worry too much about it now.  I had Park Rangers and the police there and a detective who gave me his cell # in case I got called on again while shooting.  LOL

bang bang photo wrote:
As long as you realize that a different detective on a different day, might have responded completely differently.

Doubt it.  I spoke to the watch commander and this guy is in charge of this thing. It is ignorance of it al that makes people fear stuff like this.

Trey Bruggeman Photo wrote:
Thanks for all the passionate responses.  I didn't realize this would open up the proverbial "can of worms" that it did.  I was really just curious if this was a common occurence for other photogs and how you handle it.

In case anyone was wondering, I declined this portion of the shoot.  Better to just avoid these potentially dangerous situations.

I think at this time until you do further research on what is expected on your part and what is appropriate, you have made a wise move.

Real people wrote:

I think at this time until you do further research on what is expected on your part and what is appropriate, you have made a wise move.

I agree.  Do your homework.  I have done mine and know what I can and cannot do.  Wise advice!

Hilsdon Photography LLC wrote:
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If you allow this you are looking for trouble.

She is underage. In some states, a minor in bare FEET is all it takes. I'm serious, if you wan't to protect your REPUTATION as well as your BUSINESS then DON'T DO IT.

What would her parents say?  Have they been with her at any of her photo shoots (IF NOT YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING FOR TROUBLE. THEY SHOULD BE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES. PERIOD)

Does this young lady have any particular REASON to be photographed in lingerie? It is very unwise for her to go down that path anyway. Young girls should not act so sexy. Youth is much more beautiful without all the added vampiness. I'd have a talk with her parents.

haha please! no one [rational] will think any less of him for shooting a minor in her undies with her mother's permission. open up any of the european fashion magazines and you will find plenty of minors, many wearing just a bra and panties. the police will not come through his door for doing this. in fact, if he had the mother's permission - he could shoot her NUDE. now THAT might not be the best idea, but honestly, a bra is just the same as a bikini. it is all about the intended use of the images. if her mommy plans to open up a website called katie16inpanties.com then we could probably say yeah....you probably shouldn't do this. but if she is just trying to add to her book and show her versatility in many different looks, come on, it's not a big deal.

Chris Macan wrote:
and when is James going to chime in and offer to shoot the lass free of charge?

Sorry... working... and obviously the OP is/has done the shoot (per his op), so no real need to offer to do it.

Sometimes I have artistic reasons for shooting a model who is younger than 18 and sometimes I don't...  If I didn't have any artistic reason for using a model, regardless of their age, I wouldn't use him/her.


To the OP: Welcome to the Mayhem... perhaps next time just bump one of the other threads on the same topic you've come in to discuss.

Real people wrote:
Ty, go for it. The chances of anything going wrong when photographing a minor wearing some full covered underwear and a bra both made of cotton material will not subject the images to any thing that would suggest sexuality. And that cute playful smile of looking off camera just like the ones they use for cataloq print always looks appropriate.

What company would you be shooting something like this for?

actually, it is not me shooting it....
and I think it shows a lot about you as a person that you can reason and change your opinion instead of just staying the course....

I apologize for the harsh comments earlier, I totally misjudged you.

PUBLIC APOLOGY TO REAL PEOPLE!

Trey Bruggeman Photo wrote:
In case anyone was wondering, I declined this portion of the shoot.  Better to just avoid these potentially dangerous situations.

Ah... ok... well then... as per what Chris said:

Send the parents a reference to my web site.  I'll be happy to shoot with the model you mentioned in the afore mentioned outfits.


Oh, and if you'd like to meet me (and some of the area's best and most active models and photographers) before deciding whether or not to give me a reference, please by all means join the group at my studio for the Philadelphia meet and greet... https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=82927

This is like the fourth or fifth one we've had and there will be plenty of people there who have worked with me before and can attest to my professionalism.

Staci Marie wrote:
If Mom signs the paper.. AND you're comfortable.. then it should be okay.

But honestly you should inquire the girl's intentions.. if she's doing it because she *really* wants to pursue modeling .. I mean take it to the real market...
OR she just wants pictures of herself to take to school and show the boys "Hey guys look at these" hoping that the boys will say she looks like the girl outta maxim or something.
IM A 17 YEAR OLD GIRL.. I KNOW HOW GIRLS MY AGE CAN BE! Almost every girl my age wants to be a 'model' so they get their friends to photograph them in skimpy clothes and take them to school and show them off.. what better than that than to get a photographer willing to do it so they can deem themselves 'professional'.
Seriously.. ask her what her intentions are in shooting lengerie..
I've yet to shoot lengerie personally.. I've been climbing a latter with modeling since I was way young . I'm on getting swimwear down with posing and *then* I'll try some lengerie..
but honestly.. a bikini and a bra and undies are the same thing... i mean boy shorts cover *more* ass than a brazilian styled bikini bottom...

but before I end my big babble.. if the girl is under 15 ..and maybe even if she is 15.. I wouldn't do it.. if she's not planning on going to NY to hand those photos to agencies than I would advise her to wait...

Does it actually matter what "her" intentions are?  When did we start censoring the client's intentions with the photos being paid for?  Nice post, by the way.

Real people wrote:
If parents consent by signing a piece of paper stating that they give permission allowing someone to take pictures of their child nude, does that make it legal?

Individuals need to protect children and just being a parent doesn't naturally make that person to protect that child. Why did you think we have a system set up to protect children from parents who are not responsible to take care of them.

I certainly hope that if someone ever did take a picture of a child wearing something that is meant for adults, that if it went to court, that the baliff would smack the persons penis off with the gavel.

We weren't talking nude. And by something meant for adults do you mean camouflage? A wedding ring? But I did love the Cheech & Chong reference, "bailiff, whack his pee pee" lol

MMDesign wrote:

Did you even read his post!? And, sorry to say, most of what you've written is hyperbole.

75% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Hilsdon Photography LLC wrote:
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If you allow this you are looking for trouble.

She is underage. In some states, a minor in bare FEET is all it takes. I'm serious, if you wan't to protect your REPUTATION as well as your BUSINESS then DON'T DO IT.

What would her parents say?  Have they been with her at any of her photo shoots (IF NOT YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING FOR TROUBLE. THEY SHOULD BE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES. PERIOD)

Does this young lady have any particular REASON to be photographed in lingerie? It is very unwise for her to go down that path anyway. Young girls should not act so sexy. Youth is much more beautiful without all the added vampiness. I'd have a talk with her parents.

A little overboard don't you think? How much time do you normally spend on your soapbox? If she is an agency represented model, and it is something they need in her portfolio what is the problem? It is done all the time for Target ads, Walmart ads, etc...
Who said they had to act sexy and or provocative?